John Reed & Ten Days that Shook the World

John Silas “Jack” Reed (October 22, 1887 – October 17, 1920) was an American journalist, poet, and socialist activist, best remembered for his first-hand account of the Bolshevik Revolution, Ten Days That Shook the World. He was married to writer and feminist Louise Bryant. Reed died in Russia in 1920 and is one of only three Americans buried in the Kremlin Wall Necropolis, the others being labor organizer Bill Haywood, and Charles Ruthenburg (the founder of the Communist Party USA).

Ten Days That Shook the World (1919) is a book by the American journalist and socialist John Reed about the October Revolution in Russia in 1917, which Reed experienced firsthand. Reed followed many of the prominent Bolshevik leaders closely during his time in Russia. John Reed died in 1920, shortly after the book was finished, and he is one of the few Americans buried at the Kremlin Wall Necropolis in Moscow, a site normally reserved only for the most prominent Soviet leaders.

The first of July 1949 marks the fact that the Communist Party of China has already lived through twenty-eight years. Like a man, a political party has its childhood, youth, manhood and old age. The Communist Party of China is no longer a child or a lad in his teens but has become an adult. When a man reaches old age, he will die; the same is true of a party. When classes disappear, all instruments of class struggle — parties and the state machinery — will lose their function, cease to be necessary, therefore gradually wither away and end their historical mission; and human society will move to a higher stage. We are the opposite of the political parties of the bourgeoisie. They are afraid to speak of the extinction of classes, state power and parties. We, on the contrary, declare openly that we are striving hard to create the very conditions which will bring about their extinction. The leadership of the Communist Party and the state power of the people’s dictatorship are such conditions. Anyone who does not recognize this truth is no communist. Young comrades who have not studied Marxism-Leninism and have only recently joined the Party may not yet understand this truth. They must understand it — only then can they have a correct world outlook. They must understand that the road to the abolition of classes, to the abolition of state power and to the abolition of parties is the road all mankind must take; it is only a question of time and conditions. Communists the world over are wiser than the bourgeoisie, they understand the laws governing the existence and development of things, they understand dialectics and they can see farther. The bourgeoisie does not welcome this truth because it does not want to be overthrown. To be overthrown is painful and is unbearable to contemplate for those overthrown, for example, for the Kuomintang reactionaries whom we are now overthrowing and for Japanese imperialism which we together with other peoples overthrew some time ago. But for the working class, the labouring people and the Communist Party the question is not one of being overthrown, but of working hard to create the conditions in which classes, state power and political parties will die out very naturally and mankind will enter the realm of Great Harmony. We have mentioned in passing the long-range perspective of human progress in order to explain clearly the problems we are about to discuss.

[..] “Don’t you want to abolish state power?” Yes, we do, but not right now; we cannot do it yet. Why? Because [the right to breed and consume with total disregard for ecological carrying capacity limits clauses of international law, the legal foundation enabling breeding and consumption war imperialism] imperialism still exists, because domestic reaction [ to abolishing the right to breed and consume international law social contract clauses ] still exists, because classes [addicted to their economic and socio-political profits from the right to breed and consume with total disregard for ecological carrying capacity limits clauses of international law] still exist in our country. Our present task is to strengthen the [responsible freedomoathdatabase] people’s state apparatus — mainly the people’s army, the people’s police and the people’s courts — in order to consolidate national defence [to enable the President to have a reasonable [responsible freedom] chance of success, in accordance with Just War Theoryprinciples; to militarily, legally and/or politically implement the military necessity national security recommendation to formally and publicly announce domestic and foreign policy education and negotiations to implement an Ecology of Peace international law social contract.]
– [EoP Amended: U:01.08.17] Mao Tse-Tung; 30 June 1949 speech: On the People’s Democratic Dictatorship; made to commemorate the 28thAnniversary of the Communist Party of China.
» EoP Leg Sub: EoP Truth & Reconciliation Draft Statements; 01 Aug: EoP Axis/App’s: Re: Mao Tse Tung: Abolish State Power via Responsible Freedom Database.
» EoP v WiP NWO Neg: 31 Jul: EoP Obs: Putin 755 Diplomats to Depart Russia .. Slapped with the Truth: Xi Jinping: San Francisco EoP WinWin Bridge Path or Mike Harari WiP BangBang Bridge Path – Xi Jinping: Mongolia People’s Republic Army Games Parade – Anniversary Communist Party.
» IG: 17-08-02_eopobsputin755diplomats-wsws-googlecensor13sites.

..

Mother Earth: Emma Goldman: Social Aspects of Birth Control

It has been suggested that to create one genius nature uses all of her resources and takes a hundred years for her difficult task. If that be true, it takes nature even longer to create a great idea. After all, in creating a genius nature concentrates on one personality whereas an idea must eventually become the heritage of the race and must needs be more difficult to mould.

It is just one hundred and fifty years ago when a great man conceived a great idea, Robert Thomas Malthus, the father of Birth Control. That it should have taken so long a time for the human race to realize the greatness of that idea, is only one more proof of the sluggishness of the human mind. It is not possible to go into a detailed discussion of the merits of Malthus’ contention, to wit, that the earth is not fertile or rich enough to supply the needs of an excessive race. Certainly if we will look across to the trenches and battlefields of Europe we will find that in a measure his premise was correct. But I feel confident that if Malthus would live to-day he would agree with all social students and revolutionists that if the masses of people continue to be poor and the rich grow ever richer, it is not because the earth is lacking in fertility and richness to supply the need even of an excessive race, but because the earth is monopolized in the hands of the few to the exclusion of the many.

Capitalism, which was in its baby’s shoes during Malthus’ time has since grown into a huge insatiable monster. It roars through its whistle and machine, “Send your children on to me, I will twist their bones; I will sap their blood, I will rob them of their bloom,” for capitalism has an insatiable appetite.

And through its destructive machinery, militarism, capitalism proclaims, “Send your sons on to me, I will drill and discipline them until all humanity has been ground out of them; until they become automatons ready to shoot and kill at the behest of their masters.” Capitalism cannot do without militarism and since the masses of people furnish the material to be destroyed in the trenches and on the battlefield, capitalism must have a large race.

In so called good times, capitalism swallows masses of people to throw them out again in times of “industrial depression.” This superfluous human mass, which is swelling the ranks of the unemployed and which represents the greatest menace in modern times, is called by our bourgeois political economists the labor margin. They will have it that under no circumstances must the labor margin diminish, else the sacred institution known as capitalistic civilization will be undermined. And so the political economists, together with all sponsors of the capitalistic regime, are in favor of a large and excessive race and are therefore opposed to Birth Control.

Emma Goldman & Mother Earth

Emma Goldman (June 27 [O.S. June 15], 1869 – May 14, 1940) was an anarchist political activist and writer. She played a pivotal role in the development of anarchist political philosophy in North America and Europe in the first half of the 20th century.
Born in Kovno, Russian Empire (present-day Kaunas, Lithuania) to a Jewish family, Goldman emigrated to the United States in 1885. Attracted to anarchism after the Haymarket affair, Goldman became a writer and a renowned lecturer on anarchist philosophy, women’s rights, and social issues, attracting crowds of thousands.[2] She and anarchist writer Alexander Berkman, her lover and lifelong friend, planned to assassinate industrialist and financier Henry Clay Frick as an act of propaganda of the deed. Frick survived the attempt on his life in 1892 and Berkman was sentenced to 22 years in prison. Goldman was imprisoned several times in the years that followed, for “inciting to riot” and illegally distributing information about birth control. In 1906, Goldman founded the anarchist journal Mother Earth.

In 1917, Goldman and Berkman were sentenced to two years in jail for conspiring to “induce persons not to register” for the newly instated draft. After their release from prison, they were arrested—along with hundreds of others—and deported to Russia. Initially supportive of that country’s October Revolution which brought the Bolsheviks to power, Goldman reversed her opinion in the wake of the Kronstadt rebellion and denounced the Soviet Union for its violent repression of independent voices. In 1923, she published a book about her experiences, My Disillusionment in Russia. While living in England, Canada, and France, she wrote an autobiography called Living My Life. After the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War, she traveled to Spain to support the anarchist revolution there. She died in Toronto on May 14, 1940, aged 70.

During her life, Goldman was lionized as a free-thinking “rebel woman” by admirers, and denounced by detractors as an advocate of politically motivated murder and violent revolution. Her writing and lectures spanned a wide variety of issues, including prisons, atheism, freedom of speech, militarism, capitalism, marriage, free love, and homosexuality. Although she distanced herself from first-wave feminism and its efforts toward women’s suffrage, she developed new ways of incorporating gender politics into anarchism. After decades of obscurity, Goldman gained iconic status by a revival of interest in her life in the 1970s, when feminist and anarchist scholars rekindled popular interest.

Humans: An Endangered Species:

The action I am initially proposing is value neutral and does not favor or harm any individual or group. The action I am proposing will be applied to every person or group without favoring anyone. The action is very simple—limit the right of any male to father only one live child and limit the right of every woman to one live birth. In simple terms a couple is limited to one and only one child—not one child for the male and one child for the female.

These limitations would be applied to every single human being without regard to race, religion, national origin or anything else and it would be absolute, no exceptions. It would be applied without regard for wealth, or the lack of wealth, and it would be applied without regard for the country of birth or residence of either the male or female. It would be applied without regard to intelligence, or the lack thereof, and without regard of the ability of the male or female to function in society. (At a later date when a method was agreed upon relating to dividing human beings into two groups, the ability to function in society would be considered in relation to who could or could not reproduce.) The right to either father a child or for a female to give birth could not be sold or transferred; it would be personal to the individual. If a live child were born with a birth defect or with some other disability it would not permit either the father or mother to produce another child. Each couple would have the right to have all appropriate pre-natal tests to determine if the child in the womb would be born with a birth or genetic defect and if the chance existed that the child would be born with such a defect to have an abortion.

Since survival of our species depends on the one child rule, under my proposal any attempt to evade the rule would result in death of the evader and of any second child. The rule to be fair must be absolute, without a single exception. If the female cannot or refuses to provide the name of the father she and the child shall be immediately executed. All of the ideas set forth in this paragraph may be considered horrible and inhumane. However, since they will be applied equally, no individual or group is harmed except to the extent that an individual cannot either father or give birth to a second child. The harm caused to the individual and the harm caused to all of humanity by enforcing the one child rule set forth above is miniscule compared to the harm which all of humanity would suffer if population were not reduced.

Since the birth of a child is very hard to hide, there must be communal responsibility and accountability for any attempt to do so. Those who knowingly failed to report the birth of a second or any higher number of children would themselves be subject to the very same severe punishment that would be meted out to the parents of the second or higher numbered child—no religious, cultural or ethnic exemptions would obtain. Humanity cannot consider the evasion of the single child rule a game to be played with a minor penalty, if caught. No group or individual could be permitted any evasion of the one child rule a that would lead to a disparity among groups and among individuals causing irreparable harm to the entire system established to reduce population. Should this sanction seem barbaric or draconian, it is surely less draconian in its effects than the merciless verdict of nature upon a species that refuses to contain its expansion.

In order for this proposal to be fair, equitable and workable, society and governments would be required to take action today to provide the means for every human being to control his or her fertility, to give everyone on the face of the earth the ability to limit birth to a single child. Governments would be required to devote a whatever portion of their Gross Domestic Product is necessary to the provision of artificial birth control devices of any and all types including sterilization, at low or no cost as appropriate, to their citizens, no matter the age of the citizens once a citizen reaches the age he/she can physically reproduce. This would also include instruction as how to use the devices. This would also include education of both males and females that the birth of a second child would result in the execution of the father and mother as well as the child. Governments would be required to provide safe, as much as any medical procedure can be safe, and low cost or free access to abortion. If any person, either male or female, had more than two failures of birth control devices, it would be conclusively presumed that the person was unable to use birth control devices and the person would be physically and permanently sterilized.

If poor nations were unable to devote the necessary funds to accomplish the one child rule in five years, the rich nations of the world would be required to assist the poor nations, after an evaluation that the poor nations were doing the best they could under some reasonable standard. Since survival of our species depends on reducing population below the current 6.7 billion humans now alive, the necessary funds to establish the system to control population must be made available. It should be emphasized that a “One-Child-Per-Family” (OCPF) law that is almost completely effective will not suffice. It must be totally and universally effective. After a five year preparation period, the rule must be enforced. The reduction in population would continue under the one child rule until all of humanity agreed upon the method and criteria necessary to implement the two group solution described herein. Population would continue to be reduced pursuant to the method and criteria of the two group solution until it reached 300 million or some other lower number agreed upon by humanity. The number finally agreed upon would be based on the ability of the earth to provide resources for humanity to maintain an acceptable standard of living for a minimum of 25,000 years. And 25,000 years is infinitely small when compared to the 160 million years the dinosaurs ruled the earth.

No doubt any proposal that would recommend capital punishment for transgressors of the One-Child-Per-Family law presently evokes immediate revulsion and rejection. Outside the context of an imminent die-off, given our heritage of moral, religious and cultural programming, I would be surprised if it didn’t. An example which shows that morality changes when circumstances change follows. Any Londoner who proposed in August 1938 that the Royal Air Force should one day bomb German cites with women and children in them would be summarily dismissed as a callous barbarian. But just two years later Londoners were clamoring for that action. Reality has a way of effecting abrupt ethical changes. What is not presently comprehended by almost all of humanity is that we are now in an emergency. Our species is on the brink of an unparalleled catastrophe—our destruction and the destruction of our civilization. It is a matter of complete indifference to me that many, if not all, readers will find the execution of anyone having a second child to be horrible and against every moral precept they learned or understood was applicable to humanity. The problem is not that my prescriptions are immoral or horrible. Rather the problem is that the situation humanity finds itself in is horrible. I will now remind the readers that under the law I propose every individual would be well aware of the consequences of flouting the law. Which of the two evils is worse— a) executing anyone who knowingly violates the one child rule; or b) not reducing population such that the vast majority or probably all of humanity is destroyed? Under this system fertility drugs would not be permitted or if they were permitted and used, only one child would be permitted to be born alive or the rest would be destroyed at birth, if more than one were born alive. If a women gave birth to more than one child and fertility drugs or any other actions to increase fertility or the number of children born were not the cause, those children would be permitted to live. Each individual will have a very clear choice—execution or birth control or sterilization or abortion or abstinence.
» SS Defcon: SQSwans: Jason G Brent.
» IG: 17-05-20_joyreid-eoptrc-vs-wipimpeachment; 17-05-20_anavalny-couragemother; 17-05-23_eop-v-wip-media-02; 17-05-29_eopscientificculturallaw; 17-05-30_eopftbragg-milethicsqa; 17-05-31_dtrump-kanyewest-katthygriffin-jdgeorge; 17-06-02_eoptrc-citizenv-mcbride; 17-06-05_eop-v-wef-bilderberg-bizforneweu; 17-06-21_eop-v-wip-charity; 17-06-21_eop-v-wip-media-03; 17-07-22_eop-v-wip-media-04; 17-07-26_eop-v-wip-media-05.

14 Comments

[…] No doubt any proposal that would recommend capital punishment for transgressors of the One-Child-Per-Family law presently evokes immediate revulsion and rejection. Outside the context of an imminent die-off, given our heritage of moral, religious and cultural programming, I would be surprised if it didn’t. An example which shows that morality changes when circumstances change follows. Any Londoner who proposed in August 1938 that the Royal Air Force should one day bomb German cites with women and children in them would be summarily dismissed as a callous barbarian. But just two years later Londoners were clamoring for that action. Reality has a way of effecting abrupt ethical changes. What is not presently comprehended by almost all of humanity is that we are now in an emergency. Our species is on the brink of an unparalleled catastrophe—our destruction and the destruction of our civilization. … Each individual will have a very clear choice—execution or birth control or sterilization or abortion or abstinence. » SS Defcon: SQSwans: Jason G Brent. » IG: 17-05-20_joyreid-eoptrc-vs-wipimpeachment; 17-05-20_anavalny-couragemother; 17-05-23_eop-v-wip-media-02; 17-05-29_eopscientificculturallaw; 17-05-30_eopftbragg-milethicsqa; 17-05-31_dtrump-kanyewest-katthygriffin-jdgeorge; 17-06-02_eoptrc-citizenv-mcbride; 17-06-05_eop-v-wef-bilderberg-bizforneweu; 17-06-11_mcveightapes-rydertrafficlightfuse; 17-06-21_eop-v-wip-charity; 17-06-21_eop-v-wip-media-03; 17-07-22_eop-v-wip-media-04; 17-07-26_eop-v-wip-media-05; 17-08-03_maotsetung-abolishstateresponsiblefreedom. […]

The action I am initially proposing is value neutral and does not favor or harm any individual or group. The action I am proposing will be applied to every person or group without favoring anyone. The action is very simple—limit the right of any male to father only one live child and limit the right of every woman to one live birth. In simple terms a couple is limited to one and only one child—not one child for the male and one child for the female.

These limitations would be applied to every single human being without regard to race, religion, national origin or anything else and it would be absolute, no exceptions. It would be applied without regard for wealth, or the lack of wealth, and it would be applied without regard for the country of birth or residence of either the male or female. It would be applied without regard to intelligence, or the lack thereof, and without regard of the ability of the male or female to function in society. (At a later date when a method was agreed upon relating to dividing human beings into two groups, the ability to function in society would be considered in relation to who could or could not reproduce.) The right to either father a child or for a female to give birth could not be sold or transferred; it would be personal to the individual. If a live child were born with a birth defect or with some other disability it would not permit either the father or mother to produce another child. Each couple would have the right to have all appropriate pre-natal tests to determine if the child in the womb would be born with a birth or genetic defect and if the chance existed that the child would be born with such a defect to have an abortion.

Since survival of our species depends on the one child rule, under my proposal any attempt to evade the rule would result in death of the evader and of any second child. The rule to be fair must be absolute, without a single exception. If the female cannot or refuses to provide the name of the father she and the child shall be immediately executed. All of the ideas set forth in this paragraph may be considered horrible and inhumane. However, since they will be applied equally, no individual or group is harmed except to the extent that an individual cannot either father or give birth to a second child. The harm caused to the individual and the harm caused to all of humanity by enforcing the one child rule set forth above is miniscule compared to the harm which all of humanity would suffer if population were not reduced.

Since the birth of a child is very hard to hide, there must be communal responsibility and accountability for any attempt to do so. Those who knowingly failed to report the birth of a second or any higher number of children would themselves be subject to the very same severe punishment that would be meted out to the parents of the second or higher numbered child—no religious, cultural or ethnic exemptions would obtain. Humanity cannot consider the evasion of the single child rule a game to be played with a minor penalty, if caught. No group or individual could be permitted any evasion of the one child rule a that would lead to a disparity among groups and among individuals causing irreparable harm to the entire system established to reduce population. Should this sanction seem barbaric or draconian, it is surely less draconian in its effects than the merciless verdict of nature upon a species that refuses to contain its expansion.

In order for this proposal to be fair, equitable and workable, society and governments would be required to take action today to provide the means for every human being to control his or her fertility, to give everyone on the face of the earth the ability to limit birth to a single child. Governments would be required to devote a whatever portion of their Gross Domestic Product is necessary to the provision of artificial birth control devices of any and all types including sterilization, at low or no cost as appropriate, to their citizens, no matter the age of the citizens once a citizen reaches the age he/she can physically reproduce. This would also include instruction as how to use the devices. This would also include education of both males and females that the birth of a second child would result in the execution of the father and mother as well as the child. Governments would be required to provide safe, as much as any medical procedure can be safe, and low cost or free access to abortion. If any person, either male or female, had more than two failures of birth control devices, it would be conclusively presumed that the person was unable to use birth control devices and the person would be physically and permanently sterilized.

If poor nations were unable to devote the necessary funds to accomplish the one child rule in five years, the rich nations of the world would be required to assist the poor nations, after an evaluation that the poor nations were doing the best they could under some reasonable standard. Since survival of our species depends on reducing population below the current 6.7 billion humans now alive, the necessary funds to establish the system to control population must be made available. It should be emphasized that a “One-Child-Per-Family” (OCPF) law that is almost completely effective will not suffice. It must be totally and universally effective. After a five year preparation period, the rule must be enforced. The reduction in population would continue under the one child rule until all of humanity agreed upon the method and criteria necessary to implement the two group solution described herein. Population would continue to be reduced pursuant to the method and criteria of the two group solution until it reached 300 million or some other lower number agreed upon by humanity. The number finally agreed upon would be based on the ability of the earth to provide resources for humanity to maintain an acceptable standard of living for a minimum of 25,000 years. And 25,000 years is infinitely small when compared to the 160 million years the dinosaurs ruled the earth.

No doubt any proposal that would recommend capital punishment for transgressors of the One-Child-Per-Family law presently evokes immediate revulsion and rejection. Outside the context of an imminent die-off, given our heritage of moral, religious and cultural programming, I would be surprised if it didn’t. An example which shows that morality changes when circumstances change follows. Any Londoner who proposed in August 1938 that the Royal Air Force should one day bomb German cites with women and children in them would be summarily dismissed as a callous barbarian. But just two years later Londoners were clamoring for that action. Reality has a way of effecting abrupt ethical changes. What is not presently comprehended by almost all of humanity is that we are now in an emergency. Our species is on the brink of an unparalleled catastrophe—our destruction and the destruction of our civilization. It is a matter of complete indifference to me that many, if not all, readers will find the execution of anyone having a second child to be horrible and against every moral precept they learned or understood was applicable to humanity. The problem is not that my prescriptions are immoral or horrible. Rather the problem is that the situation humanity finds itself in is horrible. I will now remind the readers that under the law I propose every individual would be well aware of the consequences of flouting the law. Which of the two evils is worse— a) executing anyone who knowingly violates the one child rule; or b) not reducing population such that the vast majority or probably all of humanity is destroyed? Under this system fertility drugs would not be permitted or if they were permitted and used, only one child would be permitted to be born alive or the rest would be destroyed at birth, if more than one were born alive. If a women gave birth to more than one child and fertility drugs or any other actions to increase fertility or the number of children born were not the cause, those children would be permitted to live. Each individual will have a very clear choice—execution or birth control or sterilization or abortion or abstinence.
» SS Defcon: SQSwans: Jason G Brent.
» IG: 17-05-20_joyreid-eoptrc-vs-wipimpeachment; 17-05-20_anavalny-couragemother; 17-05-23_eop-v-wip-media-02; 17-05-29_eopscientificculturallaw; 17-05-30_eopftbragg-milethicsqa; 17-05-31_dtrump-kanyewest-katthygriffin-jdgeorge; 17-06-02_eoptrc-citizenv-mcbride; 17-06-05_eop-v-wef-bilderberg-bizforneweu; 17-06-11_mcveightapes-rydertrafficlightfuse; 17-06-21_eop-v-wip-charity; 17-06-21_eop-v-wip-media-03; 17-07-22_eop-v-wip-media-04; 17-07-26_eop-v-wip-media-05; 17-08-03_maotsetung-abolishstateresponsiblefreedom; 17-08-21_jbrent-humansendspecies-1child. […]

Tygae IG Factual v Interpretive Reality Caveat:

No interpretation implied in any Tygae Infographic is stated as a fact. Any interpretation implied of another persons motives could be anything from 001% upto 100% correct or incorrect. Until confirmed; they are only working hypothesis interpretations; NOT FACTS. Reminder: Factual Reality is founded upon FACTS: if overt: what happened, who said what, who did what to whom, how and when. We create the world by noticing who, what, when and how via our senses of sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch. Interpretive Reality is founded upon the INTERPRETATION OF FACTS: if the whom, when, how or what act is not factually unequivocal; because it is partially covert and hidden, then a combination of smaller evidentiary facts combined can enable an interpretation of 'how'; 'when'; 'who' and/or 'what'. Generally speaking when we consider 'why' the observed individual overtly or covertly did or said what and how and when; we enter into subjective interpretive reality. [Excerpt: EoP RH IQO]